Olak
New member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2010
- Messages
- 34
- Reaction score
- 16
- Location
- Chelsea, NYC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
Why are unions considered anti-capitalistic or socialistic? I've never understood that, or the reasoning behind it. Unions are workers controlling their collective capital - i.e. their labor. Why do conservatives consider this socialistic?
It's a monopoly on labor and it should be illegal like all other monopolies.
Monopolies shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
Government created monopolies are the bigger problem and the most threat.
How is a union a monopoly? Couldn't a contractor employee less skilled employees?
Between a business and the union proper, the business has to contract with the union.
It cannot choose to not employ workers from that union.
From the business standpoint it's a monopoly on labor.
From a business standpoint the consumer is a monopoly on revenue lol
Your point is disingenuous at best. Nor does it address the socialistic aspect of my OP, many conservatives use unions in the same breath with marxism. I fail to see why unions are not capitalistic.
i always thought they were what free-marketeers wanted, they are the natural result of free market forces, same as businesses merging, only it is the workers merging.
the socialist aspect of it is that you have people joining together for mutual benefit, which is decidedly anti-capitalistic.
A union by it's very nature isn't anti capitalist.
When employed with the legal monopolistic protection, it is.
A consumer is a single person, they are the buyer not the seller.
Now if all consumers were grouped together and they all dictated a universal price, of what they would buy a product at, that would be a monopsony.
I'm not sure how a boycott is anti-capitalistic? Or why the market can force the buyer to do anything - at all - outside sell.
A boycott isn't anti capitalistic.
A labor strike, were the business cannot buy labor outside those who are striking, is.
A boycott isn't anti capitalistic.
A labor strike, were the business cannot buy labor outside those who are striking, is.
Unions put power in the hands of the worker. There is power in numbers. The Elite are a minority and fear it. They want the ability to exploit workers.
But that business chose to sign a contract with that union.
If they don't like it. Don't sign the contract. Hire only non union workers. If all tge workers joined the union then tough ****.
Unless I'm missing something which I may be.
Huh?
A strike is the suspension of good until the goods increase in price. If a farmer stores his grain in an attempt to pass a over supplied market of grain, then he is smartly using his capital (the grain). In a free market the farmer is not beholden to put his goods instantly on the market?
Why should labor be treated differently?
There is a balance of power that should be maintained.
Neither the worker, nor the business have a long term advantage; by retaining to much power over the other.
Contrary to popular belief, a business has it in it's best interest to negotiate with union of workers to meet at a good middle ground.
When the union has most or all the power, the business will fight it tooth and nail, because the union will attempt to exploit the business.
Coming to a reasonable compromise, where all parties benefit, is mutual aid.
A boycott is a form of consumer activism involving the act of voluntarily abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with a person, organization, or country as an expression of protest, usually for political reasons.
Boycott - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Strike action, often simply called a strike, is a work stoppage caused by the mass refusal of employees to work. A strike usually takes place in response to employee grievances.
Strike action - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you sure you are a libertarian? Why would the free market require a balance? And why is a union beholden to any business? If their is capital (i.e. pay) to be had, should the union try to secure it with their goods (i.e.) labor?
What you are suggesting is that a farmer not try to gain more land.
If the farmer has more land, he produces more product. If a labor union has more workers it produces more capital. If the farmer acquires too much land, the demand for the land would exceed his product. Thus he'd sell.
If the union acquires too much labor, and demands too much, the union would be forced to lower it's wages.
Why not let the free market deal with unions?
Mammal to cat. Your point?
A free market requires a balance of power, a level playing field.
An arena where no person has greater legal privilege over another.
If the farmer holds a gun to the seller of the land and forces him to hand it over for an incredibly low price, no.
Production for the sake of production, isn't productive.
The farmer has to know that it's worth making all that extra, otherwise it will go to waste and rot in the barn.
Why not let the free market deal with unions?
That's not how it has been working though.
If a union weren't allowed special monopoly privilege, your example would happen.
Since it has special legal protection, the union is free to exploit the business.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?